Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm?
In general, it does more good than harm 299 46.43%
In general, it does more harm than good 52 8.07%
In general, it does more good only in the bass frequencies 31 4.81%
It depends on the room-correction system; some work better than others 123 19.10%
It depends on the room 33 5.12%
It depends on the speakers and their placement 17 2.64%
I don't have enough experience to say 89 13.82%
Voters: 644. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:31 PM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

And those toy mics that come with most AVRs, they are no match for a professional calibration mic. I bet those cheap little mics are half the problem.

I bet they are not.


Room EQ wizard. ppl here should know it as this is where it came from.
Decent calibration mic you can get for under 100 euro.
Get real results, and a measurement that you can use.

Completely unreasonable I know wink.gif
807recordings is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,394
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

And those toy mics that come with most AVRs, they are no match for a professional calibration mic. I bet those cheap little mics are half the problem.
OK, so how do you overcome that problem? Receiver manufacturers are not going to include a $90 mic from Cross Spectrum Labs with a $399 receiver. What would you do to make the best of those toy mics? Batch testing? Program a cal file into the room correction software?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #183 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

OK, so how do you overcome that problem? Receiver manufacturers are not going to include a $90 mic from Cross Spectrum Labs with a $399 receiver. What would you do to make the best of those toy mics? Batch testing? Program a cal file into the room correction software?

Apparently there isn't a $399 receiver with room correction that's worthwhile anyway, so they should just use the dinky little mic for gain and timing and call it a day. Unless XT32 is coming in $399 receivers now?

Anything $999 and up MSRP should absolutely come with an individually calibrated mic.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #184 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
comfynumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Northeast PA.
Posts: 4,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 408
I agree the mic could be better but if Audyssey thought it compromised things I doubt they would want you to use it. That little mic picks up everything.
comfynumb is offline  
post #185 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:57 PM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
How do you get a 3 Star Michelin Star dinner for free?
How about adding MSG to your TV dinner. Should be the same right?
ya, ok....

Behringer ECM8000 mic you should be able to find for under 50 euro. I imagine cheaper in USA as everything is more here in DE.

Room EQ wizard though is really darn expensive. I believe last time I checked that one it was as high as free.

Tada your on your way.

Insulation for Super-chunk corner traps is as cheap as it gets, and will do far more good than any software.

Couple screws, choose some nice fabric that you wife will love, and your on your way to some very good pro sound.
imagic likes this.
807recordings is offline  
post #186 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 01:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I agree the mic could be better but if Audyssey thought it compromised things I doubt they would want you to use it. That little mic picks up everything.

Because its cheap. Anything but their highest end XT32 is also a compromise.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #187 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
comfynumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Northeast PA.
Posts: 4,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Because its cheap. Anything but their highest end XT32 is also a compromise.



Yeah I have the latest Audyssey it does ok IMO.
comfynumb is offline  
post #188 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

What if the default target curve is designed to be closer to perceptually flat than measured flat (as is the case with Lyngdorf, Dirac, ARCOS)? Then you're using the microphone to conform the frequency response to something that scores high on preference tests. Which is a good start because, if you're designing room correction, you want the typical consumer to be happy with the results right out of the box (i.e., sounds better On than Off). If there is an option for more sophisticated users to fine tune the target curve to their personal taste, then all the better. Either way, decisions are not being made by a microphone (that's just a data collection tool) but instead by the room correction designer and/or the end user.

There's far more to the perception than just whether or not a frequency response chart is a certain shape. Here's what a single microphone doesnt know:

-The dispersion characteristics of the speaker, and it's anechoic frequency response
-The XYZ positioning and of the speakers and their tilt
-The positioning and reflectivity of the boundaries
-The interaction of multiple speakers playing at once
-The relative positioning of the mic itself

These are all variables that can alter why the mic captures what it does and/or what we perceive. Whether or not a certain frequency is coming in high or low is due to the speaker itself (by design or a flaw), whether or not the mic is off axis, or because there's a strong reflection or absorption....these would all change how you would want an EQ to approach the issue. Unless those variables can be controlled for to some degree, it's a crapshoot whether any "corrections" it makes are a legitimate improvement.

Quote:
The only reason I would use (for example) ARCOS is because I don't have option to get Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Todd Welti and Alan Devantier to tune my room. Since the designers of room correction technologies can't be in your room, one way they can use their experience to help you is by putting their knowledge into a measurement/equalization system. But that will inevitably require using a microphone to capture data. Consider it a necessary evil, unless you know of a better alternative for data capture?

No question that microphones and a mic pre-amp hear differently than two ears and a brain. Rather than lament those differences, think about how you would overcome that limitation.

By not attempting something so futile (electronic correction above the transition frequency with a single microphone) in the first place. In lieu of that, if it absolutely MUST attempt it - the EQ system should carefully verify that it's "corrections" are actually doing more good than harm. It's going to take a lot more than a few sweeps per channel to achieve that, and so far, no one that I know of has been willing to put out a room correction that actually goes all the way and finishes the job.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #189 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

There's far more to the perception than just whether or not a frequency response chart is a certain shape. Here's what a single microphone doesnt know:

-The dispersion characteristics of the speaker, and it's anechoic frequency response
-The XYZ positioning and of the speakers and their tilt
-The positioning and reflectivity of the boundaries
-The interaction of multiple speakers playing at once
-The relative positioning of the mic itself

These are all variables that can alter why the mic captures what it does and/or what we perceive. Whether or not a certain frequency is coming in high or low is due to the speaker itself (by design or a flaw), whether or not the mic is off axis, or because there's a strong reflection or absorption....these would all change how you would want an EQ to approach the issue. Unless those variables can be controlled for to some degree, it's a crapshoot whether any "corrections" it makes are a legitimate improvement.
By not attempting something so futile (electronic correction above the transition frequency with a single microphone) in the first place. In lieu of that, if it absolutely MUST attempt it - the EQ system should carefully verify that it's "corrections" are actually doing more good than harm. It's going to take a lot more than a few sweeps per channel to achieve that, and so far, no one that I know of has been willing to put out a room correction that actually goes all the way and finishes the job.

BD, it also does not distinguish between reflected sound and direct sound in a room....

I have just listened to Home Theater Geeks: Science of the Room for the second time to try and understand more of it and he makes some very good points about issues that come up with EQ of your room and reflections and the delay that even you head creates between your different ears.

It's truely fascinating and I think I may have to listen to it again.

I have been meaning for a long time to buy Sound Reprodcution by Floyd Toole but after listening to this episode it makes me want to read it some more.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #190 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 03:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,394
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

By not attempting something so futile (electronic correction above the transition frequency with a single microphone) in the first place.
Too late for that, since practically every manufacturer of room correction is equalizing above transition. Rather than abandon the idea, they're attempting to overcome its limitations (with some success, if the poll is any indication).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

In lieu of that, if it absolutely MUST attempt it - the EQ system should carefully verify that it's "corrections" are actually doing more good than harm. It's going to take a lot more than a few sweeps per channel to achieve that, and so far, no one that I know of has been willing to put out a room correction that actually goes all the way and finishes the job.
The only one I know of that does before/after measurements is ARCOS: spread 8 mics and the automated process measures, filters, re-measures. The mics never move the whole time.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #191 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 04:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Too late for that, since practically every manufacturer of room correction is equalizing above transition. Rather than abandon the idea, they're attempting to overcome its limitations (with some success, if the poll is any indication).

All they need to do is give the end user a simple option, they don't need to abandon the idea.
Quote:
The only one I know of that does before/after measurements is ARCOS: spread 8 mics and the automated process measures, filters, re-measures. The mics never move the whole time.

Well, that at least sounds like a step in the right direction.

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #192 of 372 Old 08-01-2013, 09:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
I will step in and say that below 250hz it is beneficial unless you can implement multiple sub locations and possibly have a few bass traps. I subscribe to Earl Geddes sub theory though and hope to have it implemented in the future.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #193 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 12:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

... not attempting something so futile (electronic correction above the transition frequency with a single microphone) in the first place. In lieu of that, if it absolutely MUST attempt it - the EQ system should carefully verify that it's "corrections" are actually doing more good than harm. It's going to take a lot more than a few sweeps per channel to achieve that, and so far, no one that I know of has been willing to put out a room correction that actually goes all the way and finishes the job.

Hm. I kind of disagree. In fact, I disagree rather vehemently.

A house is not a sound studio. If one's house does look like a sound studio, chances are they've never been married, will never be married, wear very unattractive clothes (regardless of price) and take only occasional showers.

Having established this, what is the alternative?

The alternative is DRC. At least my experience has been more than positive.

My house is generally acoustically live. Very live. Stone floors in the main areas and hardwood in my TV room, with lots of floor-to-ceiling glass and bare walls. All sorts of stuff bounces around and sometimes even the rafters shake, on things like Portishead. I hate rafters shaking.

So, a few years ago I replaced my subs with subs with built-in EQ and the improvement was immediately noticeable.

Later I tried adding a receiver with Audyssey MultiEQ XT and it provided some additional improvement, although admittedly minimal. In any case, using the sub EQ (and Audyssey) was definitely better than no EQ.

Finally, I got an R-972 on a whim (it's dirt-cheap at the closeout prices) and Trinnov Optimizer turned out to be the best acoustic improvement in my house since I first added a subwoofer. It's really that good, at least in my TV room (in the LR I don't use Trinnov, but ran the sub's EQ, then measured and tweaked it manually). But Trinnov does some amazing stuff with multi-channel.

So, do I think electronic correction is futile? Absolutely not!

Of course, your mileage may vary and some implementations are better or worse than others. Some possible worse than no EQ, I suppose.

But from what I've heard, Room EQ is the future and probably the most promising home audio improvement to come in decades.
islandman2020 likes this.
Ryan1 is offline  
post #194 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 03:10 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,636
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked: 2261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Hm. I kind of disagree. In fact, I disagree rather vehemently.

A house is not a sound studio. If one's house does look like a sound studio, chances are they've never been married, will never be married, wear very unattractive clothes (regardless of price) and take only occasional showers.

Having established this, what is the alternative?


The alternative is DRC. At least my experience has been more than positive.

My house is generally acoustically live. Very live. Stone floors in the main areas and hardwood in my TV room, with lots of floor-to-ceiling glass and bare walls. All sorts of stuff bounces around and sometimes even the rafters shake, on things like Portishead. I hate rafters shaking.

So, a few years ago I replaced my subs with subs with built-in EQ and the improvement was immediately noticeable.


Later I tried adding a receiver with Audyssey MultiEQ XT and it provided some additional improvement, although admittedly minimal. In any case, using the sub EQ (and Audyssey) was definitely better than no EQ.

Finally, I got an R-972 on a whim (it's dirt-cheap at the closeout prices) and Trinnov Optimizer turned out to be the best acoustic improvement in my house since I first added a subwoofer. It's really that good, at least in my TV room (in the LR I don't use Trinnov, but ran the sub's EQ, then measured and tweaked it manually). But Trinnov does some amazing stuff with multi-channel.

So, do I think electronic correction is futile? Absolutely not!

Of course, your mileage may vary and some implementations are better or worse than others. Some possible worse than no EQ, I suppose.

But from what I've heard, Room EQ is the future and probably the most promising home audio improvement to come in decades.

Blame wives for the preponderance of room auto-correction systems, clever! Thankfully you were able to neuter your own system, so it fits within the so-called WAF standard. I'm especially impressed that EQ was able to "tame" the rafter-shaking deep bass notes from Portishead.

I bet you are one handsome fella, who takes showers daily and dresses in nothing but designer clothes even if you can't afford them... all easily deduced and firmly established, based on how your system is set up.rolleyes.gif

All kidding aside, sounds like you've got a lot of things in place - at least two subs, a "high end" DRC system with a sophisticated microphone, and you leave your main L/R alone (no EQ). Seems about right.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #195 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 06:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Hm. I kind of disagree. In fact, I disagree rather vehemently.

A house is not a sound studio. If one's house does look like a sound studio, chances are they've never been married, will never be married, wear very unattractive clothes (regardless of price) and take only occasional showers.

Having established this, what is the alternative?

The alternative is DRC. At least my experience has been more than positive.

My house is generally acoustically live. Very live. Stone floors in the main areas and hardwood in my TV room, with lots of floor-to-ceiling glass and bare walls. All sorts of stuff bounces around and sometimes even the rafters shake, on things like Portishead. I hate rafters shaking.

So, a few years ago I replaced my subs with subs with built-in EQ and the improvement was immediately noticeable.

Later I tried adding a receiver with Audyssey MultiEQ XT and it provided some additional improvement, although admittedly minimal. In any case, using the sub EQ (and Audyssey) was definitely better than no EQ.

Finally, I got an R-972 on a whim (it's dirt-cheap at the closeout prices) and Trinnov Optimizer turned out to be the best acoustic improvement in my house since I first added a subwoofer. It's really that good, at least in my TV room (in the LR I don't use Trinnov, but ran the sub's EQ, then measured and tweaked it manually). But Trinnov does some amazing stuff with multi-channel.

So, do I think electronic correction is futile? Absolutely not!

Of course, your mileage may vary and some implementations are better or worse than others. Some possible worse than no EQ, I suppose.

But from what I've heard, Room EQ is the future and probably the most promising home audio improvement to come in decades.

As you've noted multiple times, it made the most difference for the subwoofer/bass. I'm 100% behind room correction for low frequencies. smile.gif

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #196 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 06:35 AM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

As you've noted multiple times, it made the most difference for the subwoofer/bass. I'm 100% behind room correction for low frequencies. smile.gif


For the record I am married, have very nice clothes, live in a very nice building and have some very nice custom made and designer furniture. I tend to lean towards minimal myself wink.gif

Just because you heard a difference does not mean it is better.
I like the food analogy where you add salt or sugar, but it does not make the chicken taste more like a Le Brasse bird.
You get the point of course.

Before this keeps on going as an another ignorant discussion like so many audiofools forums why is no one posting their waterfall charts of how one of these room correction made it better?
807recordings is offline  
post #197 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 06:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
d_m1010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northern Exposure Canada
Posts: 1,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Me too, and I keep the EQ restricted to the bass region. Manually EQ'd bass via outboard DSP is as much signal-mangling as I'm going to allow, and most of that is to compensate for roll-off. I deal with room modes and standing-waves by implementing four separate subwoofers.

I do understand that sometimes pragmatism wins out over the "technical ideal," and in those cases room correction might be the logical best option. But, I view it as being just like "stability control" in a sports car. Non-professional drivers will post consistently better times with "correction," and so will some pros as well. The very best-of-the-best will view it as an impediment to absolute maximum performance.

Going with the car analogy, I view EQing just the bass as being like "launch control," which is similar to stability control, except a lot more fun.
I do the same, bass only through an ASEQ1.
d_m1010 is online now  
post #198 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 06:49 AM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Here is a good explanation on correct room treatment vs software.

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

I would suggest it as a read through as there is a lot of correct information in there.

Of course there are others for actual traps, and some look even nicer.
807recordings is offline  
post #199 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 06:50 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,636
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked: 2261
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

A house is not a sound studio. If one's house does look like a sound studio, chances are they've never been married, will never be married, wear very unattractive clothes (regardless of price) and take only occasional showers.
For the record I am married, have very nice clothes, live in a very nice building and have some very nice custom made and designer furniture. I tend to lean towards minimal myself wink.gif

Just because you heard a difference does not mean it is better.
I like the food analogy where you add salt or sugar, but it does not make the chicken taste more like a Le Brasse bird.
You get the point of course.

Before this keeps on going as an another ignorant discussion like so many audiofools forums why is no one posting their waterfall charts of how one of these room correction made it better?

And whereas I do occasionally dress like a slob, shower irregularly and my room does look a bit like a mad A/V scientists lab—I've enjoyed the last 20 years of being with this beautiful woman, my wife Danya... biggrin.gif


Danya Henninger at Ladera Resort, St. Lucia - Photo by Mark Henninger


Don't mess with Danya!

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #200 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,394
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

Here is a good explanation on correct room treatment vs software.

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

I would suggest it as a read through as there is a lot of correct information in there.
I would suggest folks reading the above test should keep your own disclaimer in mind:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

Is this based on a test by a company that has an invested interest in selling a product?
Well then the test is not valid.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #201 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I would suggest folks reading the above test should keep your own disclaimer in mind:

Conclusion....everyone is trying to sell us something.

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #202 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:27 AM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I would suggest folks reading the above test should keep your own disclaimer in mind:


yes I agree with that but any information there is also based on some pretty sound principles.
-of course you are more than welcome to look at real measurements,
- find how reasonable acoustics can be,
-fix the actual problem, and not create new ones.

Oddly the site does not totally refute room EQ, but explains where it is not useful, such as in the most important areas of "ringing"


In my last flat I built my bass traps and broad band absorbers for under 200 euros, and a bit of reading.
807recordings is offline  
post #203 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,394
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

yes I agree with that but any information there is also based on some pretty sound principles.
Maybe, but then so did Sean Olive's comparison. If you can dismiss that as "not valid" solely because it comes from a company that is "selling a product", then why the double standard for another company that is also "selling a product"?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #204 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

yes I agree with that but any information there is also based on some pretty sound principles.
-of course you are more than welcome to look at real measurements,
- find how reasonable acoustics can be,
-fix the actual problem, and not create new ones.

Oddly the site does not totally refute room EQ, but explains where it is not useful, such as in the most important areas of "ringing"


In my last flat I built my bass traps and broad band absorbers for under 200 euros, and a bit of reading.

That article is quite a bit out of date:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

that is dated March2007. Since then Audyssey has XT and XT32. And it is an entirely different landscape when it comes to room correction. Neither of which is perfect, but they are good starting points for tweakers.
fookoo_2010 is offline  
post #205 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 09:53 AM
Member
 
807recordings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

That article is quite a bit out of date:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

that is dated March2007. Since then Audyssey has XT and XT32. And it is an entirely different landscape when it comes to room correction. Neither of which is perfect, but they are good starting points for tweakers.

yes it is out of date, but the basic principles of EQ (no matter how fancy you call it) will still not fix the issue.

Explain to me how an eq can stop and control ringing, then we can talk about the rest.
Anyways I digress as there are those who want to understand the basics of acoustics, and those who do not.

To each his own. smile.gif
807recordings is offline  
post #206 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 33
When I listen to my Bryston SP3, I don't think about sound deficiency or room deficiency, but rather I think about how great the sound is coming from my speakers. The quality of the sound is recording dependent. All great recordings sound absolutely steller on the SP3 to me. The bass seems just right, midrange, just right as well as the hight frequency all sounds just right. More amazing is the absolute clarity of the sound that I never experienced in my system heretofore. However, some recordings have lean bass, but with great recording the bass is just right, very articulated. In fact, while the sub is on the side it integrates so well with the main speakers that the bass seems to be omni present. I would hate to see what room EQ would do to the bass on well recorded sources. The closest I've come to room EQ is the SMS-1. And while I may have set it up wrong, I found the sound in all frequencies clearer without it. I would also think that EQ would affect the sound of an amp as it would no longer be playing flat with EQ. I quickly got listener's fatique witht the SMS-1. Regardless, I'd rather do without EQ than strive for a perfect sound that does not exist. With all this tweaking and quest for perfection, I wonder when one has time to listen to the music. wink.gif I am convinced by articles I've read, that EQ does more harm than good, but for those who think differently, its your ears that matter.
gbaby is offline  
post #207 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 04:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

As you've noted multiple times, it made the most difference for the subwoofer/bass. I'm 100% behind room correction for low frequencies. smile.gif

Of course smile.gif Glad we agree.

But take a look at this as well:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1397757/r972-trinnov-user-notes/450#post_22736260
Ryan1 is offline  
post #208 of 372 Old 08-02-2013, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post

yes it is out of date, but the basic principles of EQ (no matter how fancy you call it) will still not fix the issue.

Explain to me how an eq can stop and control ringing, then we can talk about the rest.
Anyways I digress as there are those who want to understand the basics of acoustics, and those who do not.

To each his own. smile.gif

I didn't say that it would. Where did you get that idea from?
fookoo_2010 is offline  
post #209 of 372 Old 08-03-2013, 07:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bd2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,514
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Of course smile.gif Glad we agree.

But take a look at this as well:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1397757/r972-trinnov-user-notes/450#post_22736260

I'm not sure what you're trying to show?

Steam/PSN/Xbox Live: Darius510
bd2003 is online now  
post #210 of 372 Old 08-03-2013, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'm not sure what you're trying to show?

Basically that at least Trinnov's EQ is certainly capable of some noticeable reflection smoothing.
Ryan1 is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off